A few weeks ago, in response to my post inspired by Oxygen’s new series, Who cares about girls?," one of our readers left a comment, saying, "I have two young daughters so I worry as much as anyone about what the kids are going through these days–but there are problems and then there are PROBLEMS. Fairfax ain’t India. That said, maybe something on the importance of the father/daughter relationship?"
He provided a link to some work being done in this arena by an organization called Dads & Daughters, which has a mission of "making the world safe and fair for our daughters."
After a few minutes on the site, I can’t help but love this organization, and their work. As any girl with a father will tell you, dads matter–whether good or bad, there or not.
That this organization is committed to supporting and enhancing this key relationship in a young (and adult) woman’s life, providing dads the tools to be better fathers and daughters the ability to come to terms with, learn from and integrate their "father issues," whatever they might be, is clearly a worthy, valuable goal.
And I’m glad someone has taken it on.
And while I want to go on and on about how great this is, I’m also reminded that the same week I read that comment, I read an article in the Washington City Paper called "From Here to Paternity."
The article describes the work of The East River Family Strengthening Collaborative doing good work in the interest of encouraging men to be better fathers. The article describes how program staff cruise for "reluctant fathers" at various health and community centers, looking for those they can influence to take a more active, positive role in their children’s lives.
Good work, noble work, necessary work.
Work that is receiving, the article says, millions in federal funding in Washington, D.C. Two hundred such grants are handed out nationally, with Maryland in second place on the list in terms of the amount of money received (California was first) and D.C. third.
The grants have become part of a significant new "fatherhood" strategy on the part of the government because of the facts and data indicating that single mothers are more likely to fall into poverty, crime and repeat the cycle of poverty for the children.
In 2004, in Washington, D.C., the article states, 53 percent of all children lived in households headed by a single woman.
So, say the feds, get the dads back, fight poverty.
Not bad.
But, I keep thinking, are there similar, federally funded programs just for single moms?
After some quality time on my beloved Goodsearch, and a few conversations around the office, we couldn’t come up with any. While a number of programs such as TANF might primarily serve women, men are not excluded.
I’m left with this funny feeling that yet again, we’re focusing on Chris when we could be focusing on Christine. Particularly since Christine is facing odds like these:
- Only 15 percent of women going through a divorce are awarded any form of court-ordered spousal support.
- Thirty-four percent of those women never receive what is due to them.
- Less than half of the women who claim child support ever receive the full amount.
- Within the first year of divorce a women’s average standard of living falls 45 percent while a man’s will grow 15 percent.
So somehow, an initiative just for fathers doesn’t seem entirely, well, fair.
And according to the National Organization for Women, it might be quite a bit more…it may be illegal.
For NOW is currently demanding access for women to programs geared to fathers under the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, for which the Bush administration gives out $50 million annually.
NOW is targeting 34 programs, three of which are local to our region, such as a $2 million grant for the D.C. Department of Human Services to help 2,500 low-income fathers with parenting skills, substance-abuse prevention and treatment, job training and educational development.
Women are not eligible.
Also on the radar is $1 million for the National Fatherhood Initiative, a Gaithersburg group, and the Latin American Youth Center in D.C., which received $250,000 to provide 30 young fathers a year with job training, language classes and parenting skills. (Though with the LAYC program, women can enroll, too.)
NOW is advocating under Title IX (the law that prevents sex discrimination in federally funded education programs) that the funds be redirected as a parenthood initiative that focuses equally on services for men and women.
That instead of Chris or Christine, the program provide services equally to both.
And I’m inclined to agree.
But I am neither the federal government, nor a lawyer, nor a single father or mother nor an expert on federal policy.
I’m just a girl with opinions (and biases, having been raised by a single mom). And so I am sure there are nuances I’m missing, issues left uncovered, questions worth asking.
Here are a few of mine. Throw in some of yours, or some answers, because however this turns out, it promises a number of precedents and implications that will be rather important to our work–and how we think about it.
And so I ask:
1. It seems to be that the fatherhood programs are providing social services that have been shown through research and data as being extremely beneficial to single mothers and low-income women, such as parenting skills, substance-abuse prevention and treatment (the importance of which for women was recently highlighted by Women’s E-news), job training and educational development.
Why then, would the federal government only be inclined to provide them when they apply to fathers? Why has a similar investment in single mothers never been a priority? Does this just smack of sexism and unfairly aligned priorities, or am I missing an angle?
2. While equity is at the heart of NOW’s legal battle and call for revision of the initiative’s priorities, is equity truly the best solution? If we know that there are far more single mothers than single fathers out there, and that the impact of such programming when invested in women tends to go further than a similar investment in men–is equity really the case that should be made, or should women’s advocates be arguing for similar, one-track, exclusive programming and funding just for single moms and low-income women?
Where research indicates that the social benefits would justify it, is gender-based or "sexist" programming at the federal level ever justified?
3. One of the implications of the Fatherhood Initiative is that a household with two parents is always stronger economically and socially than one without. But does this account for situations where a spouse is being abusive or has chemical dependencies, and where that presence could actually have a far more negative impact on the other spouse and children than his/her absence?
Does the initiative screen for such cases? Should it?
And if so, where then are the supports and services for the responsible spouse who remains in the household with the children, if that spouse turns out to be the mother?
4. Fatherhood programs such as the one described in the City Paper article expend a great amount of resources, time and energy recruiting and chasing down fathers to convince them to enroll in their services. Programs for mothers tend to not experience this trend–rather there are usually more women needing services than are available.
Should the willingness and tendency of a population to participate willingly in programming be factored into priority decisions when funding and resources are limited? Should social services also apply a supply and demand model when funding decisions are being made?
And I’m sure there are other questions, issues and implications to be uncovered. Let’s hear them…
